Another Fine Kettle of Fish -- Iran Stiffs the IAEA

AFP reports:

VIENNA -- The UN nuclear watchdog called on Iran to halt nuclear fuel work that has raised fears of atomic weapons development and set off an international crisis, but Tehran dismissed the demand as absurd.

Even though the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution left the door open to more talks and refrained from bringing Iran before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions, Iranian negotiator Cyrus Nasseri said: "Iran will not bend. Iran will be a nuclear fuel producer and supplier within a decade."

Read the whole thing here.

Last night Mort Kondrake made an excellent point on the Fox Report, one that was expanded by Juan Williams.

Responding to the news that Iran had refused to stand down from its development of nuclear weapons, Kondrake observed that "this is what Democrats [and, we might note, the "international community," as represented by the EU] have been recommending all along" -- negotiations through international agencies like the IAEA and the UN rather than confrontation. And, he added, "that approach has failed."

The discussion then turned to what could be done and Mort said that the only course now was to refer the matter to the UN Security Council for sanctions, whereupon Juan chimed in to note that the Security Council would never take action against Iran because China would veto any sanctions.

They're both right. International agencies are incompetent to deal with the threat of nuclear proliferation. It's not their fault -- they were designed that way. "Collective security" was always a chimera.

In the absence of any effective international authority to enforce non-proliferation agreements the process can only be dealt with through massive confrontation. That means a plausible military threat directed against violators. The only power capable of issuing such a threat is the US and it will not act against the major violators -- Korea and Iran -- without substantial international backing. In the case of Korea that means China's acquiescence. In the case of Iran it means the EU. Such support is not likely to be forthcoming anytime soon. In both Europe and Asia the strong initial instinct, one that overwhelms reason, is to obstruct any expansion of US power. Besides, the American public would never acquiesce to a second or third war.

So, the non-proliferation regime continues to crumble, and as a result the world becomes an ever more dangerous. I have long suspected that the Bush administration realizes that proliferation cannot ultimately be halted, only retarded. That is why they have insisted on going ahead with SDI [Strategic Defense Initiative -- "Star Wars" to it's critics]. A realistic policy will aim at stretching out the process of proliferation until such time as effective counter-measures can be put into effect.That, I believe, is what we are seeing now.

UPDATE:

The WaPo, reacting to Iran's rejection of the EU's proposal to supply Iran with nuclear material in exchange for a halt to its enrichment program, wrote:

Now there is no further room for obfuscation, and no further reason to give Iranians the benefit of the doubt: The real aim of the Iranian nuclear program is nuclear weapons, not electric power. Those in Washington and elsewhere who have always believed that the Iranians want nuclear weapons have a right to feel that their skepticism was justified. Nevertheless, the experience of letting the Europeans do it their way, offering trade and economic incentives before bringing in sanctions or making any military threats, has been enormously important. Given both the history of flawed U.S. intelligence reporting on nuclear programs, and the fact that recent estimates place Iranian nuclear weapons six to 10 years in the future, it would have been extremely difficult for the United States on its own to get the rest of the world to agree on any sanctions regime. Now, any steps taken to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons will have international credibility.

What remains to be seen is whether the Europeans will come through, as they have promised they would, with a tough-minded push for sanctions.

Read it here.

In international affairs there is always room for more obfuscation and counting on European toughness..., well..., you know.

UPDATE:

Well, the EU came through as expected -- which means not at all. Now that Iran has failed to comply with this deadline, the IAEA has set a new deadline, in September, and if that is breached, will seriously consider taking the case to the Security Council.

Read about it here.

In other words, the EU has caved and broken its pledge to the US to enforce set deadlines. What's the matter? Did you seriously expect anything else?

So much for multi-lateralism.

Faugh!